DCIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 (2), CHENNAI vs. M/S CAPLIN POINT LABORATORIES LTD, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 1, Chennai, dated 07.03.2019 relevant to the assessment year 2013-14.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by two days in filing the appeal, for which, the Revenue has filed an affidavit for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, since the Revenue was prevented by sufficient cause, the delay of two days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 on 29.11.2013 admitting total income of ₹.13,62,31,320/- under normal provisions and at ₹.18,27,99,500/- under section 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short]. In the original return of income, the assessee has claimed only 100% deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. However, in the revised return of income, the assessee claimed deduction under section 356(2AB) of the Act at 200%. The return filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS. After considering the various details and submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act dated 29.03.2016 assessing total income of the assessee at ₹.17,21,01,070/- by making various additions. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by remitting back the issues of disallowance made under section 80IC of the Act, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) and disallowance of provision for gratuity for fresh consideration.

Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) remitted back the issues of disallowance made under section 80IC of the Act, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance of provision for gratuity is in contravention of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. It was further submission that section 251(1)(a) of the Act gives only the power to confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment to the ld. CIT(A).

On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has fairly conceded that the issues raised by the Revenue may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Against various additions made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). On perusal of the appellate order, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has remitted back the issues of disallowance made under section 80IC of the Act, disallowance of deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act and disallowance of provision for gratuity to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification and allow the grounds, which is in contravention of section 251(1)(a) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) should have called remand report under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules and decided the issues on merits. Under the above facts and circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine and decide the above issues in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.